Lewandowsky’s latest smear paper gets pulled from the journal website

Tonight I’m pleased to report, that one skeptic who stood up and complained about Lewandowsky’s libelous claims, has had an effect. – Anthony

Lewandowsky – Strike Two

Guest post by Jeff Condon (originally published on the Air Vent) Hat tip – Skiphil.

–

So Dr. Lewandowsky did it again. He, and his coauthors, falsely used my name in order to support some kind of psychology paper on climate skeptic bloggers titled – “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.” There were a lot of false (and funny) claims against bloggers on the internet, however, the Lewandowsky team chose to again single out my name in particular regarding specific false attributions of beliefs regarding the global temperature record. Readers will recall that in his previous contributions to scientific understanding, Lewandowsky et al. had made the claim:

Being surprised at the accusation, I pointed out in multiple emails to Dr. Lewandowsky that the Air Vent blog has published many articles using those exact records (here for instance) both on line and in peer-reviewed literature and no such claim regarding global temperature had ever been made by me. I have even created on-line global temperature results which have been compared favorably to many of the professionally funded series by others publishing global temperature series for climate science. A short chain of emails ensued where I explained in detail how my scientific positions have never supported his accusation. After a short while, with no hope of resolution, I was forced to go directly to the editor of Psychological Science, who eventually agreed to remove the citation.

Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post. Any other blog post cited in the manuscript is also being replaced, for the same reason. … Eric Eich

Like pulling teeth right?

Humorously, the Air Vent was the single blog which made the citation list. I am not a naturally vindictive person so I took the editor at his word and let the matter rest. I have not had time to follow through as to whether the citation removal was completed, however Stephan Lewandowsky has continued to link to the unpublished original, University of Western Australia hosted, libelous document.

It seems that Lewandowsky is apparently less forgiving than I have been. He recently published a new paper based on blog reactions to his previous scientific breakthrough. This new paper astoundingly contained an even less supportable claim:

“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..”

My bold!

I would link to the paper, except that his new editors were far more rational than Eric Eich, and on notification, have simply removed the paper from publication. They have additionally agreed to remove the false reference before any publication continues. Original link here. I am impressed with the quality of the Frontiers in Psychology Journal response, and hopefully Lewandowsky will now let the unfounded personal attacks rest.

As Dr. Lewandowsky and his team were aware, the conspiracy claims against me regarding the adjustment of temperature records were unsupported. This is was a psychology paper of which I am at least an “alleged” subject. A misrepresented data point, like so many other bloggers, who’s identity was unethically revealed. Since I did originally take the time to inform Lewandowsky of my actual opinions on temperature records, and since he was fully aware that the article in question did not support his claims, it is my opinion that Lewandwosky and his coauthors intentionally introduced false data into a peer-reviewed paper. Ironically for a paper on conspiracy ideation based on others (read non-authors) pre-conceived bias, the authors scientifically irrational accusations were completely unnecessary to the point their paper purports to make…..

Jeff Condon you need to get your mind right. Obviously you’ve got a severe case of counterfactual thinking and constipational ideation going on if you didn’t even realize that you’ve been arguing that the temperature records only show warming because of adjustments. This can be corrected by an aggressive course of shock therapy and large daily doses of LSD, combined with intensive study of materials presented on the S.k.S website.
/sarc
Well done sir, BTW I admire your blog very much.

Good response, Jeff! Amazing (but not surprising, really) that Lewandowsky could continue to be so reckless. For the True Believers, who really think they are in a street fight ala Michael Mann and Peter Gleick, the end justifies any means. We can expect worse to come from Lewandowsky et al., but at east you made them take notice.

P.s. It is right around the one year anniversary of the misbehavior of another miscreant in the Mann-styled Climate Wars, Peter Gleick. One year later and Gleick has skated merrily away from his malfeasance with hardly a ‘tsk tsk’ from his allies and enablers. This would be a good month for blogs to press journalists and the US Dept of Justice to revisit these matters.

From what I understand, it is taken down with the expectation that the offending statement about Condon will be removed, and then the author can resubmit the replacement. What isn’t known yet is if this will be an automatic replacement, or one that has additional scrutiny as a requisite for reinstatement.

I would think that the editor would be more wary now, and perhaps give the paper a thorough inspection before making it available again. I certainly would if I were in that position.

For whatever reason on earth could Lewandowsky’s ‘contribution’ to any form of knowledge advancement possibly be worth any degree of monetary compensation however minute that compensation might be? I’m real serious here. What breakthroughs, insights, revelations has he developed in his chosen field, and to the benefit of the world? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. If he had any insight at all he might recognize the embarrassment he is to himself.

Well done bro. When I read that reference I had a good chuckle and figured you’d be all over Dr. Loo’s sorry butt. he could have written an interesting paper on conspiritorial ideation taking examples from all sides (big oil, etc ) and showed how the internet has a tendency to foster such thinking. That would have been interesting. My sense is the ethics committees at those boys universities should get some mail.

I’ll give the good Doctor the “recursive” part, but the “fury” part seems to be a projection.
—-
Fury:
intense, disordered, and often destructive rage
—
The Erinyes are usually called the Furies, in English. For those using the Greek names, they are often referred to euphemistically as Eumenides “gracious ones.” The Furies pursued particularly heinous criminals and drove them mad with their pursuit.

I am given to understand that defamation is a crime in Australia. As Lewandowsky’s preachings appear on a web site hosted (on behalf of) the University of Western Australia, it would be subject to such laws.

Perhaps Lewandowsky can come to appreciate that even ivory towers (eventually) offer no defence under the rule of law.

“What breakthroughs, insights, revelations has he developed in his chosen field, and to the benefit of the world? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. If he had any insight at all he might recognize the embarrassment he is to himself.”

Wow, that’s perfect. I feel sadness for the man, but that doesn’t keep me from hoping that he is relieved of his position of employment.

It would be great if there is a resubmission requirement with some teeth to it.

But, to put it mildly, the article in its current form doesn’t look like the product of rigorous review— and one has to wonder how strict the peer review process is for anything that gets submitted to Frontiers in Psychology.

While skeptics have a deep appreciation of science, we often assume opponents have the same commitment to uphold the scientific method and have the ethics to maintain high standards. As we see in so many examples, this is often not the case, and truth is far less important to many promoters than carrying out the agenda. We may even view it as conspiracy-like because we simply can’t see how so many so-called professionals could act so badly unless they are actively coordinating actions together that the rest of us would consider inconceivable as individuals. At least I feel that way.

Ultimately, the ones with science AND integrity on their side will carry the most influence. Most people I’ve talked to who think we have a planetary emergency are quite happy to switch sides once they understand how badly they’ve been misled. After all, most regard the truth as far more important than projecting a cool image to others about saving something that they find out later is not in need of saving.

I wonder if the editor will soon be forced to resign…
…and of course…Lewandowsky is bitter because Al Jazeera did not buy his pitiful organ ‘www.ShapingTomorrowsWorld.org’ with their lavish oil derived budget and poodle groomers.

As at 1940 hours New Zealand Summer Time on 07 February the article was still posted on the Frontiers’ site and can be found by a site search for “Lewandowsky”. The subsequent blog comments make reference to Jeff’s concern.
The blog also conatins a mention from Cook that the full paper is now available athttp://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf
It is there with posts from all the gang Down Under. Have a look at “Our Authors”. The site is supported by Uni W.A., Curtin and Murdoch universities. Wonder what their VCs think.

First, the paper was submitted Nov. 5, 2012 – and not “accepted” until Feb. 2, 2013.

Second, the Editor of the paper is Viran Swami, whose work (Swami 2009) much of Lewandowsky’s work is directly based on, and builds on. A large share of the survey questions came directly from Swami 2009.

The interesting part is, if I recall correctly, there were two reviewers listed originally – Elaine McKewon and another – now that other reviewer name has been removed and Viram Swami is listed as the 2nd reviewer.

As he is claiming to be a psychologist – and bringing thinking psychologists into disrespect perhaps you might want to complain to the Australian Psychological Society about his improper conduct as well. I note that he is not a practising psychologist as he is not registered with AHPRA but I suppose he is a member of the APS.

I don’t know….. Jeff, good on you for sticking up for what you’ve stated and not stated. It’s a horrible thing for people to misrepresent people’s positions, especially by supposed professionals. We’ve all had it happen to us. But…….

At some point, doesn’t it occur to us skeptics that we’re the ones lending this idiot credence? Surely, like Jeff, it would have “gotten my goat” had that imbecile misrepresented what I’ve stated. And, I would have been P.O’d to the point beyond civility. I mean, I never heard of Lewdy until he gained notoriety here. Can’t we just point and laugh at him? Can’t we use him as a shining example of what an alarmist is? I mean he’s demonstrated that he’s very little math skills. He’s demonstrated a willingness to lie, and lie just about anything.

He’s a dishonest cretin. This is demonstrable. Let the warmists have him. Tie Lewdy around their neck. If they want to quote him and put him in the media, good! Put Lewdy’s fingerprints on every warmist thing you can and then present him to the public. Do so especially anytime a warmist “journalist” quotes the barely functional moron.
Lewdy = win for skeptics!!! ;-)

Psychology is not a science it is a pathology of the mind whereby the gurus try to project their sense of reality onto those that actually live in reality. This man has the mind of a fifteen year old projecting his fantasies into the world using tax payer money in the fantasy world of the useless part of academia. In the real world he has no worth, thus no job, it is a good time in Australia to stir the pot, our unions and government are under police investigation for fraud, our sports are caught in major drug investigations, people are being arrested for kiddie fiddling, big investigation.
Time to clean out academia also, a little law suit would go a long way at this time, sue him for libel the uni will cave in and sack him.

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake so I’d appreciate it if someone could clarify this point for me.
Jeff caught Lew out because Lew wrongly stated that Jeff asserted on his blog that historical temperature records had been tampered with by Warmists and Jeff never made such claim.
Did I get that right?
Because over the years I have come to understand that Warmists HAVE in fact altered historical temperature records in their efforts to make the present seem warmer…indeed I’ve seen pieces right here on WUWT to that effect.
Did I get that right too?
None of this alters my low opinion of Lew but did Jeff get him on a ‘technicality’?

I do see Lewandwosky, like Gleick, as a sicko with no sense of reason or perspective, not to mention a hugely dominant ego. Sick [snip . . site rules, it is still legible . . mod]. If he wasn’t such a buffoon he’d be dangerous.

I must say the latest Lew paper is definitely recursive, he demonstates supposed conspiracy ideation by proporting a supposed sceptic conspiracy to derail climate science. This is Bizarre. No sceptic in my experience has ever done anything of the sort – In fact most sceptics in my experience are trying to put Climate Science back on secure scientific footing – I think Lew is guilty of the only Conspiratorial Ideation here – perhaps he should look inward to understand why he believes these fairytales.

Surely there must be ethical restrictions preventing people writing psychological papers about named, living people without their permission? I’d have thought it might be worth at least asking a lawyer.

One letter from a solicitor might be enough to stop both the the journal and Lewandowsky permanently.

My belief in the honest of science sinks by the day as I follow this climate nonsense :(

A. Scott and others discussing the reviewers. Here are the original reviewers before the editor apparently added himself. (This in itself is very troubling and may need to be reported to the head of the Journal).

Here are the reviewers of this paper:

Michael J. Wood, University of Kent, United Kingdom
Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Reviewer Wood gets 6 citations in the text of the Lewandowsky paper and reviewer McKewon gets 5 citations. What’s not to like from the reviewers point of view? It doesn’t matter whether the paper should be hung on the outhouse doorhandle to get the most out of it.

My research interests generally centre around the topic of conspiracy theories. How do conspiracy theories differ psychologically from more conventional explanations for events? Where do they come from, how do they spread, and how do they affect the communities in which they arise? My doctoral research will investigate these questions both in a laboratory setting and through examination of online conspiracy communities, which are fertile grounds for the growth of non-mainstream belief systems and alternative narratives of why the world is the way it is. I am also interested in cults, belief in the paranormal, automatism and the ideomotor effect, and recovered memory.
Thesis Title

I remember the tragic story about an English rock musician. It turned out that he had mental problems which were going untreated because nobody detected anything out of the ordinary. Whatever mad thing he did was dismissed as the kind of thing that rock musicians do.
Eventually he overstepped the mark and was arrested. Only then was it discovered that he was rather nuts.
I wonder whether a similar condition affects particular academics.

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake so I’d appreciate it if someone could clarify this point for me.
Jeff caught Lew out because Lew wrongly stated that Jeff asserted on his blog that historical temperature records had been tampered with by Warmists and Jeff never made such claim.
Did I get that right?
Because over the years I have come to understand that Warmists HAVE in fact altered historical temperature records in their efforts to make the present seem warmer…indeed I’ve seen pieces right here on WUWT to that effect.
Did I get that right too?
None of this alters my low opinion of Lew but did Jeff get him on a ‘technicality’?

Jeff Condon objected to a blatant lie – not a “technicality” – in the paper by Lewandowski.
The difference between what Condon has said and the assertion in the paper is a fundamental difference of fact. That difference is of the same kind as the difference between, e.g.
(a) ‘The recorded amount that was stolen has been altered’
and
(b) ‘The theft reported to the insurers did not happen’.

All the global temperature data sets are often altered such that recent temperatures are raised and temperatures from decades ago are lowered; e.g. see
The changes to global temperature calculations increase the temperature rises indicated by the global temperature data sets. And it is reasonable to raise issues of scientific method and propriety when discussing these adjustments to the data.

The disputed statement in the paper says something completely different. It says

Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..

There is no dispute that global temperature data sets are often altered by adjustments and that these alter the degree of recorded global warming. The objected sentence says Condon has asserted there is no global warming indicated by the global temperature data sets except for the rise introduced by the adjustments to the data.

The objected statement is egregious in several ways.
1.
It is factually incorrect but is cited as evidence in a research paper.
2.
The factually incorrect statement misleads about the reality of the subject of the paper.
The paper assesses “conspiracy ideation” and the statement seems to provide evidence of a false belief in a conspiracy (i.e. global warming is ‘made up’ and not real).
3.
It misrepresents the views of Condon as being a believer in a false conspiracy
4.
It is personally offensive to Condon in that its misrepresentation is derogatory of the views Condon expresses on his blog.
5.Use of fabricated evidence is sufficient reason for withdrawal of any paper from publication. The objected sentence provides a falsehood that has no justification: it is fabricated evidence..

Between my studying psychology in the Seventies and working in it again today I find a very great change has happened, as a result of which we may consider the phrase “Psychological Science” a definite oxymoron.

Psychologists are aware of this and are divided among those who think the change is a good thing (calling it Post Modernism and “Qualitative”) and those whose still valid work will eventually come to be seen as an adjunct of the real science of biology. I predict the eventual emergence of the phrase “Behavioural Biology” to refer to what used to be called “Psychology” as a necessary means of distinguishing it from the junk that the latter term has now come to denote.

This would leave such guff as is referred to here its due recognition as patent pseudo-science. In fact, pseudo-something without even a pretense at science.

Don’t get too happy about this. LEW has a PhD.
While that doesn’t exactly resonate with us, it gives him credence in the world of (he-he) journalism.
Ten years ago I remember telling my brother that if the CAGW crowd couldn’t make their case on scientific merit, they would turn to psychology to shut up the opposition.
That’s what is happening now.
Read the history of the Soviet Union to know what comes next! It’s pretty much predetermined.
Jeff’s very brave!

Moderator:
The item at February 7, 2013 at 4:12 am implies that my post has been lost in the ‘ether’. This is a repost of it.
Richard
================

Charles Gerard Nelson:

Your post at February 7, 2013 at 12:30 am says and asks in total:

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake so I’d appreciate it if someone could clarify this point for me.
Jeff caught Lew out because Lew wrongly stated that Jeff asserted on his blog that historical temperature records had been tampered with by Warmists and Jeff never made such claim.
Did I get that right?
Because over the years I have come to understand that Warmists HAVE in fact altered historical temperature records in their efforts to make the present seem warmer…indeed I’ve seen pieces right here on WUWT to that effect.
Did I get that right too?
None of this alters my low opinion of Lew but did Jeff get him on a ‘technicality’?

Jeff Condon objected to a blatant lie – not a “technicality” – in the paper by Lewandowski.
The difference between what Condon has said and the assertion in the paper is a fundamental difference of fact. That difference is of the same kind as the difference between, e.g.
(a) ‘The recorded amount that was stolen has been altered’
and
(b) ‘The theft reported to the insurers did not happen’.

All the global temperature data sets are often altered such that recent temperatures are raised and temperatures from decades ago are lowered; e.g. see
The changes to global temperature calculations increase the temperature rises indicated by the global temperature data sets. And it is reasonable to raise issues of scientific method and propriety when discussing these adjustments to the data.

The disputed statement in the paper says something completely different. It says

Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..

There is no dispute that global temperature data sets are often altered by adjustments and that these alter the degree of recorded global warming. The objected sentence says Condon has asserted there is no global warming indicated by the global temperature data sets except for the rise introduced by the adjustments to the data.

The objected statement is egregious in several ways.
1.
It is factually incorrect but is cited as evidence in a research paper.
2.
The factually incorrect statement misleads about the reality of the subject of the paper.
The paper assesses “conspiracy ideation” and the statement seems to provide evidence of a false belief in a conspiracy (i.e. global warming is ‘made up’ and not real).
3.
It misrepresents the views of Condon as being a believer in a false conspiracy
4.
It is personally offensive to Condon in that its misrepresentation is derogatory of the views Condon expresses on his blog.
5.Use of fabricated evidence is sufficient reason for withdrawal of any paper from publication. The objected sentence provides a falsehood that has no justification: it is fabricated evidence.

Moderator:
There seems to be a problem. As a result of the appearance of my note at February 7, 2013 at 4:12 am I have attempted to repost my reply to Charles Gerard Nelson. That repost also seems to have ‘gone’.
I would appreciate your looking into this. please.
Richard

Of course climate scientists don’t fraudulently adjust past temperatures to make global warming look worse than it already is. Nobody on this blog ever said anything like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Drive by bear baiting with falsehoods again are we Johnny boy?

You just proved that Academics can even read and comprehend. Nice going!
……
For those who might want to know who Johnny boy is link from Sonny at Jo Nova’s site where Johnny Boy routinely makes his presents felt. Further he is The First-year Physics Unit Coordinator, Academic Staff (Physics) at The University of Western Australia. As someone who is SUPPOSED to be trained in physics, he is not exactly a poster boy for the usefulness of higher education.

I had a look at one of the Prof’s blogs on “Shaping Tomorrow’s World” site, and was going to leave a comment, to be put off by the need to register. So – in the hope that he might sully himself with alternative thinking (or “ideation”), and read parts of this site – you can all peruse it, too:-

In your abstract, you included rejection of the scientific proposition of the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoke. This may well be on the basis that, when 90% of the adult population smoked, 90% of lung cancer sufferers were smokers. Nowadays, only about 40% of the adult population smoke; obviously, it should still be that 90% of lung cancer sufferers must be smokers; but, wait – only 40% of lung cancer sufferers are smokers! While I cannot say that smoking anything will result in no harm, I fail to see why a fall in smoking and a rise in lung cancer rates does not raise questions about the veracity of the original claim.

Of course, you may be of the ideation that this comment is but a part of the conspiracy to downgrade your contributions to science.

A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
February 7, 2013 at 4:05 am
…… for so effectively helping to sustain vigorous public discourse … via a hilariously ineffective WUWT “Whack-a-Mole Strategy” of attempting to quench it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lew’s papers are so bad they need to be highlighted to make sane people question the MSM’s propaganda that skeptics are looney tunes. Once people figure out that scientists often publish fake research and are now being caught at it the better off we all are.

It’s Lew, no it’s Cook, no Lew, Cook, Lew, er, hang on…
[UPDATE 2 [7 Feb, 18.40 AEST]: This is all in the public domain now, so I am sharing it here. The fourth author on this paper, Michael Hubble-Marriott, is the “Mike” who is responsible the Watching the Deniers site (sorry, what are we denying again? Duh). Mike couldn’t contain his glee at being asked to be part of the team, so he revealed it all on his blog. I guess you judge people by the company they keep…]

John Brookes @ 12:22. Clue is in your word ‘worse’. You still don’t get it, and trying for sarcasm when you don’t get it is analogous, but quieter, than being wrong at the top of your lungs.
===============

However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming. . . .

As Feynman famously pointed out, when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!

The IPCC projections show sustained SYSTEMATIC (aka “bias”) Type B Standard Error in global warming models. True objective scientific models would result in be randomly distributed predictions about the mean of the resultant actual temperature trend. This is a massive failure by the IPCC to apply the scientific method to correct these obvious errors.

Quantify and Expose the Global Warming Lemmings
This presents a major opportunity for innovative social scientists to explore:

Surely there must be ethical restrictions preventing people writing psychological papers about named, living people without their permission? I’d have thought it might be worth at least asking a lawyer.

——————-

This occurred to me too, before reading your comment. Since this is a psychology paper, rather than a climate science paper, and Jeff Condon is being used as a subject, it is an absolute requirement by university ethics panels that he be presented with a form outlining the purpose of the study, the purpose of his participation in the study, and overall study parameters. Jeff Condon then should have to sign the form in agreement to allow his information to be used, and this form submitted to the university ethics committee, prior to any publication. Or perhaps Australia does not have the same red tape for such studies? (red tape with which I agree in this case). I have to go through this to interview scientists for my historical research, and, unlike Lewandowsky, I am trying to learn from my subjects, not malign them.

The conspiracist begins with the completed puzzle, however, rather than its pieces, or in Timothy Melley’s phrase, “the master narrative” (Melley 8). Although Melley says that conspiracies are “hermetically sealed,” I would assert that conspiracy theories are also hermetically sealed, due to a worldview which abhors both coincidence and ambiguity.12

Now, there are those who forward what may be called “grand” or “world” conspiracy theories that describe, as Daniel Pipes’ formulation puts it:

a powerful, evil and clandestine group that aspires to global hegemony; dupes and agents who extend the group’s influence around the world so that it is on the verge of succeeding; and a valiant but embattled group that urgently needs to stave off catastrophe.13

….These “grand” formulations are often wildly speculative and wholly unconvincing. My contention thus far has been to argue that when one is presented with an evidentiary argument that claims the existence an operational conspiracy, resorting to the “conspiracist” charge is a kind of avoidance.

Later, Moore continues the assault on conspiracists, saying that:

Almost by definition, conspiracy theorists exhibit dualistic thinking, the us-versus-them mentality. How could one consider compromising with conspirators? The idea is unthinkable. Those running the conspiracy seek power and fortune at the expense of everyone else. They are inherently evil.14

Again, this is not responsive to the claim of any particular operational conspiracy hypothesis. But when it comes to a discussion preconceived notions, it should be noted that two can play this game. For instance, one might read Moore’s work and speculate that for reasons having to do with the closeness of the tragedy to her, she begins from a “completed puzzle” with respect to the question of whether the majority of the adult deaths at Jonestown were chosen or the product of criminal coercion. Is this fair? Whether or not one believes it to be, conclusions about the motivations of a discussant should not be sufficient to dismiss their claims without hearing the evidence they assemble….

Ultimately, Hougan makes the winning point in his response to Moore: follow the evidence, wherever it leads. I would add that when an effort is made to hide the evidence, as it has been at Jonestown, expect a wider band of speculation. Pathologizing that speculation in toto contributes, purposely or not, to an environment of protection for those who have the power to act secretly to great effect, and then to keep the record of their secret action hidden from public view.

In a democratic republic, the presumption should be with the value of full disclosure at all times; the case for classification or secrecy should have to be made in each case in which its requested, with a very high threshold needing to be met. We have strayed so far from that commonsensical approach that when it is suggested on the record that the system of secret classification may be being used to cover up terrible crimes, the claim is likely to be met with rolling eyes and caustic dismissals, as if one has suggested a “reptilian agenda” or something. But perhaps we should not be surprised at this, since the same term – “conspiracy theory”– is used to describe both specific and often credible claims of government crime, as well as claims that the Freemasons have held secret control of world politics for centuries, or that Dick Cheney is a Lizard Person, and many other sorts of lurid nonsense.

Which is why we would do best to dispense with the term “conspiracy theory” altogether.

(Bryan is an Adjunct Professor, in the Department of English and Philosophy, at Drexel University…..

This guy may be a professor of English and Philosophy, but he has a better handle on ‘Conspiracy Theories’ than Lewandowsky does.

As a freshman I started out in psychology. After reading about 50 books, I concluded that it was lots of fun but you could make a good story saying anything at all (and gibberish also), so I got out and started taking calculus and physics etc. I now pat my 20yr old self on the back for having good sense.
On of the flaws in the Academy is that profs get insulated by tenure from any feedback from reality. You can really be a crazy old coot and still be a professor. The idea that ethics is central has been lost. I recently saw a quote from Freud to the effect that the ethics of the profession required one to never interfere with the political or religious beliefs of patients–boy have they lost that guideline. Now they view anything other than athiesm and left-wing politics as a pathology.

Thank you for keeping the spotlight on the feeble intellect of Cook and Lewandowsky.

They actually believe their paranoid ‘ideation’? If so then they are irrelevant to climate science, it has moved past their crude bias. If they don’t believe their own paranoid ‘ideation’ and are acting for PR purposes then they are very bad actors.

The replacement of Wood by Swami as a reviewer for the Frontiers in Psychology paper is odd, to say the least. Does this mean, for instance, that they threw out an actual review by Wood and replaced it with an actual review by Swami?

There is no prohibition against criticizing living persons in the pages of psychology journals. It happens all the time, as you might expect when many of the topics are controversial.

Most editors, however, would discourage or prohibit authors from presenting psychiatric diagnoses of their critics.

Lewandowsky, whose training is in cognitive psych, not in anything clinical, has taken to slinging around the word “ideation.” An unusual word, used mostly by psychiatrists, and always implying that mental process under discussion is deeply pathological…

Thankyou for your wonderful essay at that link. I commend it to everybody.

As it says and explains

This is real history, real facts, it all actually happened and it all happened to ordinary human beings, such as you and I. It’s history, but it’s not the history that’s taught in schools, and it’s exactly the sort of history that should be.

Is it a conspiracy thought if you hold that adjustments to temperature records are inappropriate and/or technically incorrect? if you hold that the assumptions behind adjustments are false, which makes the adjustments mathematically correct but misleading?

I think you have to say that persons doing something wrong do so with knowledge of their error and with the intent to draw another to a known false conclusion before you can use the word “conspiracy”. When you give the benefit of the doubt to your preferred solution, you may be in part self-serving, but then both William James and Albert Einstein would say that you can do this if it leads to a better end than not doing so: much of “truth” is first recognized on a gut level, after all.

“Ideation” Sheesh, does the dictionary need this for psychology to go forward. I guess when you have little beef in your research it helps to invent “scientific” words as well as invent data points. I note that Lewandowski – a data-cooking psychologist, is publishing more papers on climate science than the once prolific hockey team. I guess he thinks data-cooking is legitimate climate science, following the hockey team’s lead.

It’s ironic that loads of skeptics (surely including commenters here) DO believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming.

Total fail! There is nothing “ironic” and nobody needs to “believe” because it is a certain fact that “temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted” in a manner which does “exaggerate warming”. Seehttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/And none of that is relevant to the importance of the falsehood which required the ‘pulling’ of Lewandowsky’s latest paper by the publisher. Please read my above post at February 7, 2013 at 4:11 am which explains the serious and egregious falsehood in that paper.

I am sure you have investigated all these fully and completely, and that you understand and can explain the timing, mechanism and amount of the adjustments. I am sure you would not just come in here spouting something you had been told, would you?

I look forward to your detailed reply, because I would really like to know.

In Opposite World the Australian newspaper ‘The Age’ would have a headline article about this telling their readers about Lewandowsky’s much criticized paper(s) and its struggled attempts to get published. They would tell us how much money he receives at the UWA and how much has been chewed up on grants to fund this kind of ‘research’. They would also tell us that this comes hot on the heals of the embarrassing retraction of the Gergis paper last year. In Opposite World…

Hi Wamron, agree completely with your comments. As far as I can see, the scientific psychologists (psychology is not yet a science in the proper sense) are making connections with cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, with the aim of placing psychology on a surer footing, relating it specifically to biology and evolution. Unfortunately, others, who have a lot of influence, are falling into relativist and idealist / solipsist postures such as certain forms of constructivism, and social constructionism. Scratch a relativist and you’ll find an absolutist.

It appears I am out of date (below) … those Darwin annual average temperature figures were from GHCN V2, it appears that in GHCN V3 the ‘homogenization adjustment’ has been largely removed (adjusted?) for Darwin, as has the warming trend there.

I guess we can now safely say the series had been wrongly adjusted to show a warming trend?

Ruth – your comment is well founded, and the answer would be illuminating, again, especially considering that there was essentially no statistical analysis in the present paper. The question becomes then why they removed one reviewer, after the article was posted online, then added the Editor as a reviewer, and days later added a 3rd reviewer whose primary apparent value to review would be her statistical analysis knowledge.

JunkP … you might also note that the current article – it really isn’t a “paper” IMO, makes a number of pretty much silly, self serving claims, along with a handful of apparent outright falsehoods.

Starting with the most basic premise of the paper – that LOG12 was targeted by the conspiracy crowd. . The authors use the fact that their LOG12 paper drew considerable and widespread notice and criticism, compared to the 21 other similar papers they note, as the basis for this alleged scholarly work.

The REASON it drew attention was because it was designed and intended to do just that. A sensationalized, inflammatory and denigrating title being the biggest example. IMO that was the primary intent – more “punative psychology” … the authors are unabashed critic’s – activists who attack all who dare disagree with them. Up to and including publishing the “Debunkers Handbook.”

Not a one of the other papers they noted had a remotely similar inflammatory title. And although I have not read them I think its safe to say none of them used a thinly supported minor finding as the title of their paper.

Its funny too – most of the “conspiracist ideation” claims made in this paper by the authors could easily be applied to the authors behavior – examples include:

1. The acerbic and taunting responses to criticism, and denigration of those who have the audacity to question them, as posted by several of the authors in their own blog

2. The authors response towards those critical comments – the systemic banning of almost every commenter on their blog critical of their work, using increasingly draconian “violations of comment rules” as an excuse.

3. The activities of author Cook thru his Skeptical Science site, and the reactions from the membership there.

4. The discussions and comments by author Cook, and other members, in the “secret forum” at his SKS – where the discussions clearly show conspiring to affect the discussion on climate. Cook states he was working directly with Lewandowsky on several schemes intended to slant or corrupt the discussion of climate science. He also discusses a potential automated “bot” that could be used to alter the discussion

5. The highly partisan activism and advocacy by Lewandowsky and Cook against the entire community of people who are skeptical of the science behind the anthropogenic cause claims regarding global warming – as evidenced by the various speeches, commentary, media articles and the like – but most prevalently displayed by their “Debunkers Handbook”

If and when it finally appears, it will be interesting to see the title of the paper.